-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 38
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
visual proof of RMS(PSD) == RMS(time domain) #7
Comments
Only for the flat part of the response, but then yes. RaspiShake has ~5Hz geophones I think, though, so already there its not 100% valid if you look at 1-5Hz signal. Phase shifts also appear in the flat part but that should not matter too much in this case I guess
I mean, can't hurt, I'd say |
Well I believe this is taken care of (in frequency domain) by the PPSD init and add method (see https://github.com/obspy/obspy/blob/88687a146a7c3ca8f35c608db2243cf5fed6813c/obspy/signal/spectral_estimation.py#L973). It matters a lot so we can compare multiple stations. |
yes yes, sorry, thats what I meant, but it's not needed on the full 86400*sps samples like when doing the raw trace |
ok , will add some markdown to explain the different steps & why, later today |
@claudiodsf @FMassin @megies
should I include this ipynb that shows the correctness of the computations: ?? I mean we know it's Parsaval's identity, but still:
http://msnoise.org/tmp/Amplitude%20&%20Spectrum.html
And shows advantages:
tr.data / total_sensitivity
, right?)PS: in the example above, you'll see a ~33% noise reduction when it snows in Brussels (2 to 5cm max) and all the trafic is stopped.. Kinda matches what we see today :-)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: